COMMERCIAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4142, 30 June 1874, Page 2

COMMERCIAL.

GENERAL AVERAGE DEPOSITS AND RONDS. Mr. John Henry Moore, of the Shipping Exchange, Melbourne, writes to the Argus on this subject;— It may be well to consider the respective positions of the shipowner (as represented by the master) and the consignees of the goods, “ The shipowner (we are told) has at common law a lien on the cargo whilst in his possession, or in that of his servants as a carrier, not only for the freight’s, but also for the cargo’s share of general average." In delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the case of the Galen, it was laid down by Lord Kingsdown that “ It is a possessory lien at common law, by virtue of which he (the master or owner of the ship) is entitle d to hold the goods till his claim be satisfied,’’ See Galen, Hr. and L. Such I also believe is the law of alTmaritirae states. See also, as to this right of lieu, the judgment of the Court of Echequer Chamber, in Kemp v. Hallidaj, L. R. 1, Q. R. 520, 35 L. J., Q. B. 15 G. The position of the master, therefore, seems to be as follows: —He can appoint his agents in the matter of the general average, and can also refuse to part with a single package of the cargo until the general average statement is made up, or until security be given him (usually a cash deposit) to cover such proportion of the amount of the general average contribution as may justly fall on the cargo, and for which the owners are justly liable. With reference to the objections raised against the master exercising his undoubted legal right to demand a cash deposit as security before delivering up his cargo, I have only to say that the captain, instead of being blamed, ought to bo commended for having exercised an act of prudence more for the protection of the interests of the consignees themselves than for the benefit of the shipowner. To illustrate my meaning it is only necessary to refer to a case of jettison, where the goods of consignees have been sacrificed for the common good. Suppose A and B have goods on board a vessel, which on safe arrival will be worth say £IOOO. During the voyage it having been found necessary to jettison a portion of the cargo for the common safety, the goods of A and B are all thrown overboard—to whom would A and B look to indemnify them for the loss of their goods? The interests benefited, it is admitted, would be liable. But would A and Bbo content with the promise alone, of say from 100 to 200 consignees, to pay their proportion of the general average contribution when made up? I doubt it. I think it is only reasonable to suppose that they would prefer the more substantial security of the loudly complained of cash deposit, And yet, did the captain choose to deliver the remainder of the cargo without taking any security, I am not aware that he could be prevented from so doing. True, A and B would have their remedy against each individual consignee for his proportion of the contribution, as well as against the ship and freight, but the difficulties of such a procedure have not yet been practically tested. Xam advised that the now form of average bond which is proposed for adoption here has not yet been adopted in England, nor do I think it likely to be without some material alteration. BY TELEGRAPH, AUCKLAND. Mr. Alexander Saunders reports Sales: National Bank, GTs.; Fiji, 555.; Crown Prince, 295, 3d.; Queen of Thames, 7s. Buyers; South British, 48s. Gd.; City of London, 2Gs,; Cure, 12s. Cd. Sellers: South British, DOs.; National Insurance, 30s, CHRISTCHURCH. Mr. De Bourbcll reports: —Buyers: National Insurance, 295; National Bank, 05s; South British, 48s; Shipping Company, 145.; Standard Insurance, 13s. Sellers: National Insurance, 305.; National Bank, GOs. Cd.; South British, 505.; Shipping Company, 155.; Standard Insurance, 13s. Cd.